Yes, performance will be largely the same on 0.4. If you have to do any performance sensitive code at scale MPI is really the only option I can recomend now. I don't know what you are trying to do but the MPI.jl library is a bit incomplete so it would be great if you used it and could contribute back in some way. All the basic operations should be covered.
-Jake On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-4, Ángel de Vicente wrote: > > Hi Jake, > > Jake Bolewski <[email protected] <javascript:>> writes: > > DistributedArray performance is pretty bad. The reason for removing > > them from base was to spur their development. All I can say at this > > time is that we are actively working on making their performance > > better. > > OK, thanks. Should I try with the DistributedArray package in 0.4-dev or > for the moment the performance will be similar? > > > > For every parallel program you have implicit serial overhead (this is > > especially true with multiprocessing). The fraction of serial work to > > parallel work determines your potential parallel speedup. The > > parallel work / serial overhead in this case is really bad, so I don't > > think your observation is really surprising. If this is on a shared > > memory machine I would try using SharedArray's as the serial > > communication overhead will be lower, and the potential parallel > > speedup much higher. DistributedArrays only really make sense if they > > are in fact distributed over multiple machines. > > I will try SharedArray's, but the goal is to be able to run the code > (not this one :-)) over distributed machines. For the moment my only > hope is MPI.jl then? > > Thanks, > -- > Ángel de Vicente > http://www.iac.es/galeria/angelv/ >
